Yes to both questions as long as you obtain them legally. Guns are not the problem with violence, especially if you look at violent crime statistics from countries with very strict laws on weapons. It's an issue with specific people and not the weapons they use that lead them to do terrible things with them. Asking law abiding citizens to give up weapons will not lead to a safer world and only gives a false sense of security.

If someone has determined they want to go and massacre others, then they will do so regardless of the laws and if its not guns they are using, then they could choose any other weapon that could be use to harm others. The deadliest attack at a school was by the use of dynamite at a school in the 1920s and did not even involve firearms.

The issues we see brought up in the news are just isolated incidents blown out of proportion to sway public opinion towards specific directions. Yes, the events can be tragic, but allowing fear to determine your opinion is never a good route to take.

the crooks aren't going to fallow the law if we somehow end up banning them so i would want to be in a equal fight with the hood rat that has tried to break into my house. ( it has actually helped in the past i squeezed a few rounds into my ceiling and they went running)

People should definitely own guns. Its for their protection, since if a person really wants a gun, they will find a way to get a gun. If we are not allowed to own guns then we are left defenseless in the case of a shooting. Of course they won't protect us fully, but anythings better than getting mowed down by some psycho and having no way to really stop him. I personally think that they should relax on the gun laws since its restricting those who have done nothing wrong.

People should not be allowed to own guns. Having guns for protection is great and all but the downside to owning a gun is far greater than the upside. If you think about the flat opportunity cost of the two options, it is something like this:Allowed to own guns:
Pro:
self-protection = saving a couple person from potential criminals if actions are carefully executed
Con:
Anyone at anytime has the ability to commit a mass-murder = many people could die in matters of seconds, without time to protect themselvesNot allowed to own guns:
Pro:
much less destructive weapons = easier to protect yourselves since you or another person could handle the situation more efficiently
Con:
the danger of not being able to protect yourself well enough

Comparing the two options, does it not seem much safer to not own any guns as supposed to being able to own guns?
Guns are able to take down thousands of people in a blink of the eye; other weapons (swords, for example) are not able to inflict as much damage as guns. With one bullet, you could be dead, no matter how many people try to stop a gunman, it would be difficult and cost many lives. However, if it is not a "one shot, one kill" kind of weaponry with enough bullets to easily kill 10 people either way, control of this weapon is much greater. If someone were to rob a store with a sword, there are many objects nearby that could be used to save yourselves, such as throwing chairs, bottles, etc.

EDIT: Oh, if you are arguing that guns are still able to be obtained illegally otherwise, then we might as well agree that there is no hope for humanity or anything at all. There are always many unexpected alternatives to solutions but we must still hold hope for those solutions because that is the best we can do. We have laws in this world but there are still criminals who break them, yet we still keep those laws. Why? They are guidelines to how a peaceful world should be. Same with the debate of guns. We all know there will always be rulebreakers but once you set guidelines, it will become easier to control the amount of rulebreakers in our society. That's how laws work.

Yes they should, but no guns that shoot more than 8 bullets before you have to reload. When our ancestors decided you should always be able to own a gun they didn't have rapid shooting guns with huge amounts of bullets, I am sure they would be horrified at the level of gunpower currently available to anyone.

if guns weren't invented america would not exist and many other countries also, if gun weren't around you could still die, and don't think that taking away guns will keep bad people from doing bad things. what would you use if 5 people came into your house with knives and was trying to kill everyone you loved. if everyone were good people then yes there would be no point in violence and the tools that make it easy to kill.

If gun is allowed for everyone, the 5 people that come into your house would be carrying guns that shoot you dead before you pull out yours. Whereas, without guns, you may potentially have time to grab something nearby to protect yourself against the non-[ranged-easy-1hitKO] weapon. Guns only help inflict maximum damage. You definitely have a better chance if the weapon were not a gun. And saying "if guns weren't invented......." is the same as saying, if Columbus were not born into this world, America would not have been found. You are making false assumptions. Spurious correlation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

Only after intensive and extremely thorough background checks. As for the 2nd amendment is was intended for the citizens of the newly formed U.S.A. to form armed militias if invaded and it was a good thing, but now there needs to be much harsher regulation. A buddy of mine just bough an AR-15 online. He doesn't need it as we live in one of the safest cities in the U.S. He's just been swept up in this "Obama's taking our guns bullshit", and which Obama is not trying to do. Clinton banned assault rifles and then cowboy Bush came along and repealed that. Give me one good reason why the average citizen needs an assault rifle... One that isn't a a rant or conspiracy theory... all the guns in the world won't mean shit when the drones launch a missile on your ass....

if guns weren't invented america would not exist and many other countries also, if gun weren't around you could still die, and don't think that taking away guns will keep bad people from doing bad things. what would you use if 5 people came into your house with knives and was trying to kill everyone you loved. if everyone were good people then yes there would be no point in violence and the tools that make it easy to kill.

If gun is allowed for everyone, the 5 people that come into your house would be carrying guns that shoot you dead before you pull out yours. Whereas, without guns, you may potentially have time to grab something nearby to protect yourself against the non-[ranged-easy-1hitKO] weapon. Guns only help inflict maximum damage. You definitely have a better chance if the weapon were not a gun. And saying "if guns weren't invented......." is the same as saying, if Columbus were not born into this world, America would not have been found. You are making false assumptions. Spurious correlation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

I never said that everyone should be allowed guns. and that's why many superpower countries have nukes it a deterrence, a country is less likely to use it knowing they could suffer the same. and to your 5 people coming into your house they would less likely the would enter knowing everyone was armed. and guns allowed the colonist to defend themself easier, if they were bladed weapon most of them would have been untrained and more than likely lose granted yes that is an assumption but it would be a good hypothesis from what i've learned from books and documentries on the american revolution.

People should not be allowed to own guns. Having guns for protection is great and all but the downside to owning a gun is far greater than the upside. If you think about the flat opportunity cost of the two options, it is something like this:Allowed to own guns:
Pro:
self-protection = saving a couple person from potential criminals if actions are carefully executed
Con:
Anyone at anytime has the ability to commit a mass-murder = many people could die in matters of seconds, without time to protect themselvesNot allowed to own guns:
Pro:
much less destructive weapons = easier to protect yourselves since you or another person could handle the situation more efficiently
Con:
the danger of not being able to protect yourself well enough

Comparing the two options, does it not seem much safer to not own any guns as supposed to being able to own guns?
Guns are able to take down thousands of people in a blink of the eye; other weapons (swords, for example) are not able to inflict as much damage as guns. With one bullet, you could be dead, no matter how many people try to stop a gunman, it would be difficult and cost many lives. However, if it is not a "one shot, one kill" kind of weaponry with enough bullets to easily kill 10 people either way, control of this weapon is much greater. If someone were to rob a store with a sword, there are many objects nearby that could be used to save yourselves, such as throwing chairs, bottles, etc.

EDIT: Oh, if you are arguing that guns are still able to be obtained illegally otherwise, then we might as well agree that there is no hope for humanity or anything at all. There are always many unexpected alternatives to solutions but we must still hold hope for those solutions because that is the best we can do. We have laws in this world but there are still criminals who break them, yet we still keep those laws. Why? They are guidelines to how a peaceful world should be. Same with the debate of guns. We all know there will always be rulebreakers but once you set guidelines, it will become easier to control the amount of rulebreakers in our society. That's how laws work.

that is how the law system should work in theory making guidelines and the majority of the people to follow, leaving a minority of criminals and deterring more from becoming a criminal.

but the real world does not work that way.

look at the crime statistics of countries with high gun ownership. they have the lowest rates. why? because everyone mostly has a weapon with them or in their home. criminals know this and they know that if they try to break into a house they run the risk of being shot at or killed by the owners. so basically the more guns people own the safer the society becomes. now you can hide in your own world (bubble) thinking having a gun leads to more problems than they are worth. but stop and think your pro's and Con's are just the tip of the iceberg. owning a gun and knowing how to use it. is much better than not having one and needing it someday. people should be educated in how to handle a gun, how to maintain it and how to shoot/ kill a perpetrator. and to get a license you need to show that you can handle a gun. most criminals can't even handle their guns. i know first hand.

i've have had an experience were a dumb ass tried to mug me with a gun with the safety on.
not to mention the way he was holding the gun would have blown his hand first before he even got a shot at me.

btw my city is one of the safest cities in the world despite neighboring the most dangerous city in the world.

Federal laws prevent drug users and felons from lawful ownership of guns (http://www.ehow.com/list_6891578_laws-convicted-felons-possessing-weapon...). So its more a matter of enforcing already existing laws than passing new, stricter laws.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

What are the Gun Laws in Texas?
A Synopsis of State Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms

From NRAILA
See More About:state gun lawstexas law
Texas Gun Laws (As of January, 2008)
State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.

A Texas resident, if not otherwise precluded by law, may purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states.

It is unlawful to sell, rent, loan or give a handgun to any person if it is known that the person intends to use it unlawfully.

It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian.

It is unlawful to knowingly or recklessly sell any firearm or ammunition to any person who is intoxicated.
Possession

No state license is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

There are restrictions on possession by a person:
Convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor involving the person’s family or household.
Or subject to certain orders issued under the Family Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.
Carry

A person commits an offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun on or about his or her person unless the person is on one’s own premise or premises under the person’s control or inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

It is unlawful to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carry on or about one’s person a handgun in a motor vehicle if the handgun is in plain view or the person is engaged in criminal activity (other than a misdemeanor traffic violation), prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or is a member of a street gang.

A person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun must apply by obtaining a request for application materials from a handgun dealer, the Department of Public Safety, or any other person approved by the department.

The Department of Public Safety shall review all applications materials and make a preliminary determination as to whether or not the individual is qualified to receive a handgun license.

The Department will forward application materials to qualified applicants, or send written notification with the reasons that that the preliminary review indicates the individual is not qualified to receive a license.

On receipt of the application materials a criminal history record check is conducted by the Department of Public Safety. The Department must issue or deny the license within 60 days of receipt of the completed application.

The Department must be notified within 30 days of a name or address change.

A new license expires on the first birthday of the license holder occurring after the fourth anniversary of the date of issuance.

A renewed license expires on the license holder’s birthday, five years after the date of expiration of the previous license.

The applicant must submit:
A completed application form.

Two Recent Color Passport Photographs.

Fingerprints.

Proof of age (at least 21).

Proof of residency in Texas.

A handgun proficiency certificate from a qualified handgun instructor.

An affidavit stating that applicant has read and understands the law concerning a license to carry and the laws on use of deadly force and that the applicant fulfills all eligibility requirements.

And an authorization to access records.

The Department shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials.

Eligibility requirements include no record of felonies, certain misdemeanors, addictions, mental illness or delinquency in child support payments or tax payments.

A person applying for a concealed carry license must successfully complete both the classroom and range components of the handgun proficiency course to receive a handgun proficiency certificate.

The handgun proficiency certificate must be no more than two years old and shall specify if it is valid for a revolver or semi-auto pistol based on the proficiency certificate.

The Department will issue a license to carry only for the categories of firearms listed on the handgun proficiency certificate. A person who is renewing a license to carry a concealed handgun must renew their handgun proficiency certificate.

The Department of Public Safety by rule shall establish a procedure for a person who is a legal resident of a state that does not provide for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun, to obtain a Texas license.

A non-resident applicant is required to pay a fee for the criminal history record check and investigation. Such permits remain valid until expiration and can be renewed until the other state issues a license recognized as a valid license in Texas.

It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of:
A government court.

A business that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption.

A school or educational institution, high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event that is taking place.

A hospital or nursing home.

An amusement park.

A place of religious worship.

A polling place on the day of an election.

A meeting of a governing body.

A race track.

A secured area of an airport.

A correctional facility.

A correctional facility or within 1000 feet of such, on the day of an execution.

The property of another after receiving notice that concealed handguns are forbidden on that property.

It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a penal institution.

It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun while intoxicated.

It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun and intentionally fail to conceal the handgun.

Check the statistic for countries that don't allow the proliferation of personal gun use and it tells an entirely different story. Just showing U.S. stats doesn't reveal the whole picture. As for the existing laws they need to be overhauled otherwise how can people with documented cases of mental illness get permits? And no one needs a fucking assault rifle. Oh wait they need one for hunting and home defense right?

personally if you want to control gun violence go after the illegal guns but dont you dare touch the legal guns. If you want to limit clips/ mags just take it back down to 10 no less. Remember people guns dont kill people crazy people with guns kill people. Every time they try gun control the issues just get worse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA when you disarm the law abiding gun owners the crooks have easy targets.